You want dangerous ideas? These are dangerous ideas

In the hours between filing a bodyslam on Christopher Hitchens in yesterday’s edition, and this note on the Festival of Dangerous Ideas of which his talk was the keynote, your correspondent has been assailed by more than a few people who had thought the whole occasion was a pretty good idea.

Fair enough. There were a range of topics you don’t usually see at this sort of thing. “Bring Back Conscription”, “Unfit for Life (pro human genetic modification)” as well as Germaine Greer on freedom, and a couple more luminaries.

Trouble was the adjective attached to your bog standard ideas festival, which gave the whole thing the appearance of a six year old in a tiger costume. Gwwwww. I’m dangewous.

For the Darlinghurst secular-liberals most of these ideas were either safe, or so ridiculous as to be of no interest. Really dangerous ideas — ones that people might act on — didn’t get a look in, even though a generation ago they were commonplace.

You can see the reasoning behind the dangewous tag. Ideas festivals are ten-a-cent these days. What an exciting new idea they were a decade or so ago, an evolution on from writers’ festivals, where the pre-text of a book wasn’t required for a good old fashioned stoush.

But what made Ideas Festivals so interesting was also what dooms them to mundanity — they’re about anything and everything, there’s no agenda, no attachment to practice.

The Ideas Festivals emerged at about the same time as other types of gatherings were falling into a degree of disrepair on the left — and that was conferences, of parties and movements, where future political directions were thrashed out, and the mesh of ideas and action had a feel of the real about it.

Ideas Festivals have flourished precisely because ideas have become undangerous and un-threatening that holders of radically different ones can be in the same room together. When things are at stake that isn’t really possible. When the sphere of daily life — the work-brunch cycle — has become so unquestionable as to look like part of the body’s natural metabolism, then the separation of idea and practice is total.

It’s precisely because this is one of those periods when ideas don’t change how people live that such festivals can run. And it also governs how certain ideas are excluded, or never suggested.

What’s interesting — especially in relation to l’affaire Polanski, a sort of lost memory of the 70s — is how ideas that were common currency a few decades ago can now not even be spoken of at a festival of dangerous ones.

Political violence would be one. In Barry Oakley’s published diaries Minitudes, he records a night in the 70s, arguing with other Pram Factory renegades about the Red Brigades in Italy — Oakley’s position (against) being the minority.

There is a case for political violence. There is a case for political terror. I suspect that any discussion of this sort would have had the Festival’s sponsors in a bit of a flurry.

Or take that other 70s staple, child sexuality. Thirty years ago, it was taken as de rigeur that the 16-18 age of consent was miles too high, and that younger people were quite capable of expressing themselves and enjoying the attentions of famous film directors, rock stars, writers and the like. Not an idea I hold to, but most definitely a dangerous one. Conference organiser could then recover their legal costs by publishing their prison writings.

Some others:

Abortion to term should be available on demand. Women’s sovereignty over their bodies should be total.

Live organ transplants should be either banned totally, or opened completely to the free market. People should be able to sell parts of their liver, their corneas, etc, even if it shortens or damages their life.

Australian aborigines have a right to resort to the aforementioned political violence, given the continued and embedded racism embedded in health-care, opportunity and policing.

The surrendered wife. The Amish have got it right. Women are happier if they just let men run things. Legal equality has been mistaken for identicality, and the pressure to be men just makes women unhappy.

Homosexuality and marginality. A culture that displaces the child-having couple from the centre of it, is in deep trouble. Homosexuality should be legal but permanently marginal.

Any others?

And so on. That would get some punch ups happening in the foyer. And if there aint no punchups there aint no danger, and best not use the adjective.

How about:
1 - Heffo’s ‘Water from the North’;
2 - Using statute to govern polictial parties affairs and operations (preselections, rules of meetings, reporting, donations) with the limits prescribed in the consitution;
3 - Nation-wide car registration and criminal codes (it’s an abolish the states by stealth one.

Those that openly advocate for the introduction of an economy crippling CPRS/ETS should be willingly to commit to signing a legal charter outlining their clear and lucid support for the scheme.

Then, following its implementation, years of declining global temperatures and with the (now ruined) global economy pushing the hemispheres toward civil war, we will have a complete dossier on those who actively promoted the irreversible destruction of a way of life.

They (and their kin) can then be held to account…a sort of climate Kristallnacht.

* ‘The surrendered wife. The Amish have got it right. Women are happier if they just let men run things. Legal equality has been mistaken for identicality, and the pressure to be men just makes women unhappy.’
What a load of paternalistic bullshit, Guy Rundle. I am a woman who has lived with a man, happily, for 30 years, and a man’s man, I might add, who was not averse to sharing the housework with his wife 50/50, which involved cooking, cleaning and mucking in with the babies; enjoyed long conversations about politics, science and current affairs; and allowed me to be the major breadwinner and business owner. It didn’t affect his sense of his own masculinity one bit, and I got to be the aggressive, ambitious one, because that’s what made me happy.
So, for you to blithely state that ‘women are happier if they just let men run things’, is for you to expose your inbuilt prejudices that you obviously are unable to outgrow.
Thank goodness for legal equality between the sexes. It has allowed us to be whatever we want to be, to the extent now that if women want to be stay-at-home mums, that’s fine; but, if they don’t, well, that’s fine, too. Ditto for the dads.
Anyway, it’s not a desire for ‘identicality’, it’s a desire for individual expression. Now, we women can truly have it all, if that’s what we want.

I’m not sure lucidity is a term I’d equiate with MPM, but I like Monbiots idea of personal carbon credits. Leave the coal industry alone - give every man, woman and child (or guardian thereof) x tonnes of carbon to spend each year on produce which is priced in carbon as well as dollars.

Victoria - your response shows that Guy’s idea is a good one - that topic IS a dangerous idea that would have been good in the festival. Note that he wasn’t stating a view on his siggested topics, just saying that they would generate good debates.

What about making meat eating illegal? Or at least, factory farming illegal? Then meat (or any animal-derived product) would come at the ‘real cost’, ie the cost of at least providing the animal with some quality of life before it is slaughtered.
And any meat product may only be presented in the full form of the animal it comes from. I reckon many meat eaters would be vegetarian if they saw their fillet of steak or veal parma attached to the baby cow it came from. Nothing like seeing the whole duck or rabbit in the butcher’s window.

Dangerous idea? Maybe for those who make money out of being cruel to animals for profit.

Here’s a dangerous idea. People have the inalienable right to trespass, seize, capture and put out of commission any environment villain that is operating in their vicinity. They could be urban greenies occupying the nearest coal powered station. Or they could be farmers occupying nearby mines that pollutes their water and soil with toxic tailings. It doesn’t matter. Occupation and destruction should be permissible in the circumstances.

Yes, it sounds like I am advocating something like “mob” rule. To that I can only reply that sometimes the law and the government fails the common man, such as the Environmental Protection Agency of Queensland. (And you thought dangerous ideas were going to be safe?)

And a quick note to Guy: reactionary ideas such as your “surrendered wife” brain fart are generally not dangerous ideas, because the risk of them coming to pass in Australia in the near future is nil. They are ideas that have been tried and failed, sometimes more than a century ago. They are irritating to hear, but the only danger associated with expressing them is social death.

Crikey! get over yourselves. The ‘dangerous’ in the Festival of Dangerous Ideas is a marketing tool - it’s that simple. I wouldn’t put too much effort in analysing the dangerousness or not of the things raised. Its marketing 101, and thank God they did it, because, at least this Darlinghurst secular-liberal is happy that we are talking about some interesting stuff - stuff that may not be car-burningly and throat cuttingly radical, but stuff that is at least worth our time interrogating.

Guy, an argument for violent politics might seem at tad artificial when proposed as a dialogue in the quiet and gentlemanly surrounds of a ‘festival of ideas’. These festivals are by their nature secular, liberal and moderate (despite the hype). I know this is your point, but I wouldn’t put too much weight on the festivals’ unique selling point. We don’t really want dangerous, we want useful ideas which may be dangerous to espouse.

While you may not see a hearty discussion of the real benefits of genocide, crocodile wrestling or female suppression, they are at least tinkering around the edge of that dreaded dominant paradigm. And, notwithstanding a few doses of false consciousness, there are many of us that believe the dominant paradigm needs some significant tinkering (as opposed to a wholesale shift).

So, good on the festival! Keep doing whatever it takes to get some interesting discussions happening, that is, ‘anything’ except the violent and bloody overthrow of those evil purveyors of the dreaded and dangerous dominant paradigm.

It’s just a subset of the more general ‘professionalisation’ of public language, particularly Op Ed. Sad to say, Guy, it’s blokes like you who make a living from talking about things that turn dangerous ideas into brunch fodder. Every day’s a fresh empty page. Every word you write is just a gig.

The only way you can really get dangerous ideas onto the public arena is to shackle your authorial bod to them. Here’s some dangerous ideas, let’s see if you’re prepared to launch thgem:

1. Full declaration for professional writers who contribute to public debate should include how much they are getting paid for their contribution, by whom, where they live (residential address), and who they voted for at the last Federal election.

2. Full term abortion on demand should indeed be extended to women but only in strict conjunction with a national ban on genetic screening of foetuses.

3. All extant political superannuation pensions at Federal and State level should be means tested from $1 annual (other) income, reducing to zero pension inversely to other money annually earned.

4. All taxation information including the specific annual returns of every citizen should be public information, freely available from an online ATO website.

5. All citizens should be required to to perform one day of (registered) unpaid charitable work a month, including those who work for charities.

6. Tobacco should be criminalised, except where home-grown for personal use.

How about: Bring back eugenics. Sure the Nazis might have gone overboard in killing off undesirables, but we’re in danger of evolutionary stagnation and decline if we don’t pay more attention to the breeding side. It shouldn’t be possible to become a parent without a licence, obtained by a demonstration of reasonable intelligence and competence.

how about some mechanism to remove unrepresentative government before they make disastrous decisions on our behalf (like going to war with 75% of citizens opposed to it, for instance), rather than the pseudo-democratic lib/lab non-choice we get presented with every 3 years. Perhaps a “none of the above” on the ballot paper, so the major parties have to preselect someone the people might actually want to represent them.
And while we are at it, how about real shareholders (as opposed to our superannuation fund managers) having some power to reject grossly inflated executive payments, or prevent criminal actions like the James Hardy fiasco. How about some mechanism for rate-payers to force council elections when councils have stop representing their interests.
Citizens have become very passive because they have no real power, but when the rich and powerful elite get too greedy, people will say enough, and we will have another bloody and violent revolution. Legislating so that citizens at all levels of government have the power to end bad government can stop this from occurring.

A government bank, essential services run by government or nfp charities, fully close immigration/remove immigration restrictions entirely, global warming is the new millenium bug, global warming is core warming caused by taking insulating oil from around core.

“The surrendered wife”. All religions cast women as being inferior to men, and women not only go along with this idea, they believe the religions which engender these infantile beliefs. Which makes my own Atheism bliss for me.

“Abortion to term should be available on demand.” Ah the irony. At the rate Australia’s population explosion is happening, I predict, with confidence, that the State will, by 2050, have instigated a one child moratorium on the populace.

And one for me. Each person should pay for the water they use, this includes the ancient and the poor because, in theory, they would be using less anyway.

Victoria Collins: Either you didn’t bother to read Guy’s article properly, or you are totally deficient in humour.

Dangerous ideas? Okay:
1. After your heavily pregnant wife is slaughtered by the Manson Family you get to root one 13 year old.
2. Australia is doomed to a culture of mediocrity for at least 3 more generations, and no amount of Festival-ing will change that.
3. Contradicting my last point, it is now entirely impossible to predict the future, all that can be done is pick your favorite idea and try to make it happen. Except in Australia, where ideas will continue to be rejected for being to “thinky”.

(1) Why should the state get involved in marriage? Abolish it. That would solve the problem with legislating for gay marriage. Alternatively, why should marriage specify the genders and numbers of participants? Allow any number of parties to be married. Bring on ‘line’ and ‘group’ marriages! (cf Heinleins, “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” - which it would be if you cheat on several co-husbands and co-wives, & his “Friday” where the heroine gets dudded by her evil New Zealand co-wives!).

(2) Why should divorce only apply to husbands and wives. Allow children to get a divorce from their parents. With high quality government run orphanages for the children who do so. This would improve the quality of child care - rotten parents watch out , your kids will take off and you’d be stuck with paying their maintenance. (I’m on a roll - Heinlein again, with “The Star Beast”).

(3) Whenever a child is born, he or she gets a life-time’s credit of government support - a standard quantity of dole payments, health care, pension, etc according to the ability of society to provide this at the time. That’s it, for the rest of your life. Allow this to be traded. If you get sick, and use up your quota for hospital care, buy someone else’s on the open market. If you die with some quotas unused - they go as part of your estate to your children.

(4) License the right to have children. Parents must complete a procreation course and pass a test before having any babies. Second or later children licenses are only granted based on success with the first child. Only grant the number of licenses each year that the economy and environment will allow, and allow trading of the licenses on the open market. Actually, China’s one child policy is moving in this direction, and when they become the world’s superpower, what are the odds that the rest of the world will have to do something like this anyway?

(5) Define quality standards for child rearing in the law. Fine parents, or otherwise penalise any, who do not meet these standards. What standards do we set? Diets that create healthy weight kids; basic reading and numeracy levels (why do teachers alone get that responsibility?); politeness and honesty minimum standards (why do police and courts primarily get that responsibility?); minimum sporting achievements; etc. At least the parents of troublesome or low achieving kids would fund the drain such kids have on the wider society.

The best talk of the day was by Dambesi Moyo who argued (very well I thought) that the $1 trillion given in aid to so far to Africa was a waste of money and that Westerners who gave aid to associations who sent food to Africa were doing more harm than good, in particular those charities supported by celebrities. Far better is to give money to charities who then spend the money recieved buying food from African farmers so creating jobs and giving the people self-respect. Three points in particular were killing:
1. Even though over $1 trillion in aid has been given to Africa the people below the poverty line has increased from 10% to 60%.
2. Mandela’s greatest contribution to South Africa is that he did not allow the country to accept foreign aid. This made the politicians accountable and unemployment in South Africa since 1994 had declined from 40% to 25%. Still not a great figure but far better than any other country in Africa.
3. The IMF rates only 2 of the 50 sub-Saharan countries as suitable for investment.

Venise Alstergren,
I have a fantastic sense of humour; it’s Rundle’s sense of humour that I questioned, seriously, because it just wasn’t funny to me. It was the sort of thing that patronising and paternalistic types, cloaked in a seeming avant-garde nature, like to say to seem funny.

1# Ban all political donations and soft money contributions by businesses or organisations and limit individual donations from citizens to $200 per candidate per year. Increase public funding for political parties.

#2 Reign in negative gearing so that it can only be claimed on new houses and higher density redevelopments that increase supply. Don’t blink during the long overdue correction that follows.

#3 Legalize possession and use of all narcotics under a certain amount, and set up government run drug centres that will provide safe narcotics to people who sign up to rehabilitation programs.

#4 Create an ABC4 called the ‘public education channel’ to educate bogans in common sense topics they seem to have missed, like personal hygiene. Make sure all of the presenters are busty models.

#5 Dig out a massive inland canal to bring the ocean to Alice Springs!

Otherwise #3 is absolutely right. #4. Good, but ‘the bogans’ wouldn’t watch it. And, short of cutting off their eyelids, I don’t see how you could force them to watch it. Unless you put your ‘busty models’ into football gear and have that awful- whosiewhatsit? Got it. Eddie McGuire, shouting out the play.

Victoria Collins, I’m with you 100%. The idea about ‘the surrendered wife’ is appalling. The fact that Guy can suggest it as an idea worth discussing shows that women have not come as far as we might have hoped. Imagine if I suggested something equally offensive towards aborigines, asians, jews, catholics etc. I won’t try to think of an example.

Mister Ed, I’m with you as well, but I will go one step further. My dangerous idea is that Guy Rundle should write an article of at least 1,000 words praising Malcolm Turnbull - this week. Guy, are you up for it?

Mister Ed, I’m with you as well, but I will go one step further. My dangerous idea is that Guy Rundle should write an article of at least 1,000 words praising Malcolm Turnbull - this week. Guy, are you up for it?

Between Vicky & MPM, plus others whom i only scanned, Guy’s point is that the current wank is what happens when erstwhile revolutionaries become hostages to fortune (aka mortgages & kids) is mordant.
If I’ve learne danything in year on-line it is DON’T FEED TROLLS like MPM & Pedro. Let them go & infest Catalepsy, not that any one would notice.

That assumes that the policy question is simply “Immigration: YES or NO?”. Not really helpful.

And my primary concern is the welfare of this country. What other countries think of us is secondary to that.

What I would really like is informed debate on policy settings and a thorough airing of the extent of backdoor immigration that is occurring via the student visa system. I recently heard an estimate of some 500,00o such visa holders in this country. How many of those will elect for permanent residency and what does that say about the “official” immigration numbers set each year — that is, the one that the electorate hears about.

I’m not against immigration; sensible immigration is vital to Australia’s future. But I am against immigration by stealth.

•Australian aborigines have a right to resort to the aforementioned political violence, given the continued and embedded racism embedded in health-care, opportunity and policing.

They already do — why do you think they end up being policed so much? Tensions in the regions are running high with towns in lockdown at night, places like Redfern are effectively no-go zones at night and adjacent areas suffer from a lot of muggings and property crime. The traditional rite of passage has actually become a first stint in jail, it proves you are a ‘man’ and just to prove it you meet up with others more experienced males on the inside after the rite is over. Notions of property ownership are completely different from industrialised Western societies, but I think a lot of the ‘crime’ taking place is really having a slap at the white man. Australia is kind of a South Africa writ small, in a constant state of tension and guerilla warfare.

Not dangerous at all — it’s happening in the media already. Chris Evans is looking increasingly like the hollow man with rhetoric about the importance of immigration while unemployment is soarng, and continuing to boost immigration while saying he is cutting it. There’s a series of 3 articles on this in Crikey right now (3rd one tomorrow). Bob Birrell and Bob Kinnaird are whistle blowers in this area.

But maybe democratic referenda are dangerous and deadly ideas — imagine asking the stupid, uninformed public what’s good for them, when most countries prefer to operate as fascist states — fascist meaning ‘bundle’ in the original sense — of big business in collusion with government calling all the shots. I don’t remember a public referendum on invading Iraq or Afghanistan either. Or a host of other important topics. Power in the wrong hands — i.e. the public’s — in a truly democratic society would be too dangerous a thing to countenance. Just ask Sir Humphrey.

A dangerous idea. Educating people to think and by so doing avoid all the high-minded nitwitism involved by do-gooders who are against the idea of restricting our immigration program, because-wait for it……We will be seen in the eyes of the world to be discriminating on the basis of race.

If all the religious clod-hoppers had done something sensible such as restraining the amount of children being born, we wouldn’t be in this mess. Secondly, WTF does the opinion of the rest of the world matter? Thirdly WTF has race got to do with chronic over-population?

Finally: The rest of the world is desperate to get here and there is nothing we can do. The world has almost run out of space and we are the bunnies who are meant to allow it all to happen.

Euthanasia should not be illegal based on religious rules and prohibitions despite the blurb spouted by some that it could not be controlled. We have laws for many things I find it hard to believe that rational guidelines could not be set up to monitor and control euthanasia. I find it offensive when I am told that palliative care has improved so much and the thought of offing myself is wrong.

“And my primary concern is the welfare of this country. What other countries think of us is secondary to that.”

I agree wholeheartedly, I am sick of policy appearing to be made on what others will think of us(or how bad the press will be)and not what is best for the citizens of this country. All citizens of this country no matter what race.